Genetic Algorithm Based Optimum Design of Nonlinear Planar Steel Frames With Various Semirigid

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 109–134
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Genetic algorithm based optimum design of

nonlinear planar steel frames with various semi-
rigid connections
E.S. Kameshki ∗, M.P. Saka
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Bahrain, PO Box 32038, Isa Town,
Bahrain
Received 11 June 2001; received in revised form 20 February 2002; accepted 21 February 2002
Abstract
A genetic algorithm based optimum design method is presented for nonlinear multistorey
steel frames with semi-rigid connections. The design algorithm obtains optimum frame by
selecting appropriate sections from standard steel section tables while satisfying the ser-
viceability and strength limitations specified in BS5950. The algorithm accounts for the effect
of the flexibility of the connections and the geometric non-linearity of the members. The semi-
rigid connections are modeled with the Frye–Morris polynomial model. The values of the
coefficients, such as the diameter of bolts, the gauge and the geometric dimensions of angles
used in the standardization constants are obtained by designing each connection in the frame
during the optimum design cycles. The effective length factors for columns, which are flexibly
connected to beams, are obtained from the solution of the nonlinear interaction equation. Sev-
eral steel frames with different beam to column connections, such as extended end plate, and
top and seat angle with and without web cleat, are designed using the algorithm. Each design
is carried out twice, with and without considering the geometric non-linearity. Comparison of
optimum frames has shown that consideration of geometric non-linearity results in greater
economy. It is also noticed that taking the realistic behavior of beam–column connection into
account produces more appropriate and in some cases even lighter designs.
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Genetic algorithm; Optimum design; Nonlinear analysis; Semi-rigid connections; Plane steel
frames; BS 5950
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +973-782135; fax: +973-684844.
E-mail address: ekameshki@eng.uob.bh (E.S. Kameshki).
0143-974X/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 2 1 - 4
110 E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 109–134
1. Introduction
The structural response of a steel frame is closely related to the behavior of its
beam to column connections. The realistic modeling of a steel frame, therefore,
requires the use of realistic connection modeling if an accurate response of the frame
is to be obtained. It is common engineering practice to assume either pinned or fully
rigid connections between beams and columns. Experiments, however, have shown
that the actual behavior lies somewhere between these two idealized models. Further-
more, experiments have also shown that when a moment is applied to a flexible
connection, the relationship between the moment and the beam column rotation is
nonlinear. Typical moment–rotation curves of various types of connections are shown
in Fig. 1 [1]. The rotational distortion of the connections affects the drift of the
frame and brings about redistribution of moments between columns and beams. Thus,
it is certainly more realistic to assume semi-rigid connection models for beam to
column connections in the analysis and design of steel frames. Such modeling is
already refered to in the design codes such as ASCI-LRFD [2] and BS 5950 [3].
The flexibility of a connection is dependent on the geometric parameters of the
elements used in the connection, such as bolt size and dimensions of end plate or
angle sections. Extensive research work, experimental as well as numerical, has been
Fig. 1. Connection moment-rotation curve.

E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 109–134 111
carried out to establish the moment–rotation relationship for predicting the actual
behavior of the flexible connections [4–8]. As a result of these studies, several math-
ematical expressions have been proposed which vary from a simple linear model to
polynomial and power models. These relationships are used in the modeling of the
steel frame connections and they provide fairly accurate predictions of frame
response. Although the problem of analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connec-
tions has drawn great attention, the same is not true for the design of such frames.
In spite of the fact that design codes, such as AISC and BS5950, allow the designer
to consider partially restrained connections in the design of steel frames, no specific
guidelines for the design are given in these codes. In some of the recent research
work, the design problem of steel frames with semi-rigid connections is addressed
[9–12]. Among these, the optimum design algorithm developed by Almusallam [10]
makes use of the four parameter Richard moment–rotation relationship to model the
semi-rigid connection and uses the secant stiffness method to simplify the analysis.
It is shown that the consideration of the connection flexibility in the design results
in optimum frames that are lighter than the rigid frames. The algorithm presented
by Simoes [11] accounts for the cost of both member and connections in the design
of steel building frames. It is found that optimum semi-rigid frames are less costly
than those which are identified as being fully rigid. In the first three of the above
works, mathematical programming techniques are used to formulate and obtain the
solution of the optimum design problem. Due to the discrete nature of the problem,
the solution techniques available in mathematical programming are complex and
require cumbersome computational procedures. Furthermore, they treat the rotational
stiffness of the semi-rigid connection as a design variable regardless of the type and
geometrical properties of the connection. The algorithm gives the optimum value of
rotational stiffness for the optimum frame. The algorithm presented by Dhillon and
O’Malley [12] is a computer based analysis and design method, which does not
make use of any optimum design technique.
In the present study, a genetic algorithm based optimum design method is
developed for unbraced nonlinear planar steel frames with semi-rigid beam-to-col-
umn connections. Lateral displacements in such frames are much larger than those
in rigid frames because of joint flexibility, which then necessitates including the
geometric non-linearity in the analysis and design. During the optimum design
cycles, each connection between the beams and columns is designed according to
its selected type. Bolt size and other geometrical parameters are determined. These
are then used in the standardization functions of the Frye–Morris polynomials, which
are adapted to model the semi-rigid connections.
2. Discrete optimum design of unbraced steel frames with semi-rigid

connections
The design of an unbraced steel frame necessitates the selection of steel sections
for its columns and beams from a standard steel section table, such that the frame
satisfies the serviceability and strength requirements specified by the code of practice,
while economy is observed in the overall or material cost of the frame. Furthermore,
most of the present design codes, such as AISC and BS5950, allow the designer to
carry out simple design, rigid design and semi-rigid design depending upon the type
of beam-to-column connections adopted. While the assumption of rigid joint implies
that full slope continuity exists between the adjoining members, the simple pinned
joint assumption, on the other hand, implies that the beams behave as simply sup-
ported members. In reality, experimental studies have shown that all connections
exhibit semi-rigid deformation behavior, which falls part way between fully rigid
and ideally pinned connections. Partially restrained connections affect the moment
distribution in the beams and columns as well as the frame drift. Hence, designing
steel frames without taking into account the effect of joint flexibility may lead to
unsafe frames.
2.1. Design problem
The discrete optimum design problem of an unbraced steel frame, where the mini-
mum weight is taken as the objective and the optimization constraints are
implemented from BS5950, has the following form:
冘冘
ng tr
Minimize W ⫽ mr ls. (1a)

r⫽1 s⫽1
Subjected to
(dj⫺dj⫺1) / hjⱕdju j ⫽ 1,2,%,ns (1b)
diⱕdiu i ⫽ 1,2,%rd (1c)
Fk Mxk
⫹ ⱕ1 (1d)
Agkpy Mcxk
or k ⫽ 1,2,%,nc
Fk mMxk
⫹ ⱕ1 (1e)
Agk pck Mbk
MxlⱕMcxl l ⫽ 1,2,%,nb (1f)
BbfrⱕBcfr r ⫽ 1,2,%,nj (1g)
DutⱕDlt t ⫽ nby ⫹ 2,%,nj (1h)
where eq. (1a) defines the weight of the frame ignoring the minor weight of connec-
tions. mr is the unit weight of steel section to be adopted for group r from the standard
steel section table. tr is the total number of members in group r and ng is the total
number of groups in the frame. ls is the length of member s.
Eq. (1b) represents the interstorey drift limitation of the multistorey frame. dj and
δj-1 are the lateral deflections of two adjacent storey levels and hj is the storey height.
ns is the total number of storeys in the frame. BS5950 limits the horizontal deflection
of columns due to unfactored imposed and wind loads to the height of the
column/300 in each storey of a building with more than one storey. Eq. (1c) defines
the displacement restrictions that may be required to be included in addition to drift
constraints, such as deflections in beams. BS5950 limits such deflections under the
unfactored imposed loads to span/360, if they carry plaster or other brittle finish. rd
is the total number of such restricted displacements in the frame.
Eqs. (1d) and (1e) define the local capacity and overall buckling checks for beam
columns. These expressions are given in clause 4.8.3 of BS5950, which cover the
design of compression members with moments. Eq. (1d) ensures that at the points
of greatest bending moment and axial load, yielding or local buckling does not take
place. Fk and Mxk in this equation are the ultimate axial force and the ultimate bending
moment about the major axis at the critical region of member k. Agk is the gross
cross sectional area and py is the design strength of the steel grade used for member
k. Mcxk is the moment capacity of the member about the major axis. BS5950 carries
out the overall buckling check of a beam-column by using either the simplified or
more exact approach. Eq. (1e) represents the simplified approach where m is the
equivalent uniform moment factor given in Table 18 of the code. Mbk is the buckling
resistance moment capacity of member k about its major axis computed as explained
in clause 4.3.7. of BS5950. pck is the compression strength of member k which is
obtained from the solution of the Perry–Robertson quadratic equation given in
Appendix c.1 of BS5950. It is apparent that computation of compressive strength of
a compression member requires its effective length. The computation of the effective
length of a compression member connected to beams with semi-rigid connections is
automated and included in the algorithm developed. nc in Eq. (1d) represents total
number of compression members in the frame.
The constraint eq. (1f) represents the moment capacity check for the laterally
supported beams. Design of members in bending is given in clause 4.2 of BS5950.
It is assumed in this study that slabs in the steel building provide sufficient lateral
restraint for the beams. Mxl in eq. (1f) is the ultimate bending moment in member
l determined at the critical region. Mcxl is the moment capacity of member l which
is computed as explained in clause 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 of the code.
The constraint eq. (1g) is required to ensure that the steel section selected for the
column has wider flange width than the steel section adopted for the beam. Bbfr and
Bcfr are the flange widths of the steel sections used for the beam and column respect-
ively. This requirement is imposed on every joint in the frame where the beam and
column meet. nj is the total number of joints in the frame except supports.
The last constraint eq. (1h) is included to ensure that the steel sections selected
for upper floor columns are not wider in depth than that of lower floor columns. nby
is the number of bays in the frame. Dut and Dlt are the depths of the steel section
adopted for the upper and lower floor columns.
2.2. Section classification
It is worth mentioning that BS5950 necessitates the determination of the classi-

fication of the cross section of the steel sections selected for the frame members
prior to computation of their load capacities of a member depending upon whether
the cross section is plastic or compact or semi-compact or slender.
2.3. Effective column-length factor
The effective length factor k for the columns in an unbraced steel frame with
semi-rigid connections is determined from the following interaction equation [13]
G⬘AG⬘B(p / k)2⫺36 p/k
⫽ (2)
6(G⬘A ⫹ G⬘B) tan(p / k)
where G⬘A and G⬘B are modified relative stiffness factors at Ath and Bth ends of
column and given as:
冘冉冊 EI
L c
冘冉冊 EI
L c
冘冉冊冘冉冊
G⬘A ⫽ ;G⬘B ⫽
A B
(3)
EI EI
auf auf
A
L b B
L b
where subscripts b and c denote beam and column respectively. αuf is a coefficient
which represents the connection condition. It is equal to 1 for rigid connections and
is computed from the following expression for semi-rigid beam end connections.
冉
auf ⫽ 1 ⫹
2EIb
LbK∗ 冊冒 R∗ (4)
where
冉
R∗ ⫽ 1 ⫹
4EIb
LbKA 冊冉 1⫹
4EIb
LbKB
⫺ 冊冉冊
EIb 2 4
Lb KAKB
(5)
in which KA and KB are the rotational stiffnesses of the semi-rigid connections at

the first and the second ends of the beam. Ib and Lb are the moment of inertia and
the length of the beam. K∗ is the smaller of KA and KB. The solution of the nonlinear
eq. (2) results in the effective length factor k for the column in consideration.
2.4. Solution by genetic algorithm
The solution of the optimum design problem given by eqs. (1a)–(1f) requires the
selection of appropriate steel sections from a standard list such that the weight of
the frame becomes minimum while the constraints are satisfied. This turns the design
problem into a discrete programming problem. The solution techniques available in
mathematical programming for obtaining the solution of such problems are somewhat
cumbersome. On the other hand, the genetic algorithms, which are recent additions to
optimization techniques, are easy to apply and provide effective solutions to discrete
optimum design problems.
A genetic algorithm initiates the search for finding the optimum in a discrete space
by first selecting a number of individuals randomly and collecting them together to
constitute the initial population. Each individual is called an artificial chromosome
and it is constructed by joining together the total number of design variables respect-
ively in a binary or other coded form. A genetic algorithm then makes use of four
operators to generate a new population. These operators are selection, mating, cross-
over and mutation. A detailed explanation of these operators is given in [14–18].
Among these, the crossover operator is the one which plays an important role in the
production of the new generation. There are several types of crossover operators,
such as single point, two point, multi-point, uniform and variable to variable cross-
over. It has been shown that two or three point crossovers perform much better
among the multi-point crossover techniques [17]. In a detailed study on the evalu-
ation of crossover techniques carried out by Hasancelebi and Erbatur [19] it was
shown that direct design variable exchange produced the best solutions in the test
problems considered.
Genetic algorithms select those individuals in the population who are fit for mat-
ing. This selection is carried out according to fitness criteria. In order to establish a
fitness criterion, it is necessary to transform the constrained design problem of eq.
(1) into an unconstrained one. This is achieved by using a penalty function. There
are different types of penalty functions used in conjunction with genetic algorithms,
such as linear double segment, linear multiple segment and quadratic penalty func-
tions [20]. In this study, the transformation is based on the violation of normalized
constraints as suggested in ref. [21]. The normalized form of the design constraints
given in eq. (1) are expressed as follows:
gj ⫽ (dj⫺dj⫺1) / (hjdju)⫺1ⱕ0 j ⫽ 1,2,…ns (6a)
g ⫽ (di / diu)⫺1ⱕ0 i ⫽ 1,2,…,rd (6b)
冉 Fk
⫹
Mxk
Agkpy Mcxk 冊
⫺1ⱕ0 (6c)
gk= or k=1,2,…,nc
冉 Fk
Agkpck
⫹
mMxk
Mbk
⫺1ⱕ0冊 (6d)
gl ⫽ Mxl / Mcxl⫺1ⱕ0 l ⫽ 1,2,%,nb (6e)

gr ⫽ Bbfr / Bcfr⫺1ⱕ0 r ⫽ 1,%,nj (6f)
gt ⫽ Dut / Dlt⫺1ⱕ0 t ⫽ nby ⫹ 2,%,nj (6g)

The unconstrained function Z is then constructed
冘
m
Z ⫽ W(1 ⫹ C nt) (7)

t⫽1
where W is the objective function given in eq. (1a), C is a constant to be selected

depending on the problem and νt is a violation constant computed as in the follow-
ing:
if gt ⬎ 0 then vt ⫽ gt (8a)
if gtⱕ0 then vt ⫽ 0 (8b)

where t increases from 1 to m, which is the total number of constraints. The
expression for fitness is selected as
Ft ⫽ (Zmax ⫹ Zmin)⫺Zt (9)
where Ft is the fitness of the individual t, Zmax and Zmin are the maximum and mini-
mum values of the unconstrained function of eq. (7) for the entire population. Zt is
the value of the same function for the individual t only. The fitness factor for each
individual is then calculated as Ft /Fav , where Fav is the mean fitness of the entire
population. Individuals are then selected according to their fitness factor, coupled
randomly. Crossover operator is applied and off-springs are produced to obtain a
new population.
3. Analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections
Genetic algorithms move from one generation to another until either a certain
individual dominates the population or a predetermined number of generations are
reached. It is apparent that during the computation of a fitness factor for each individ-
ual the evaluation of constraints is required. This in turn necessitates the analysis of
the frame in order to update its structural response under the external loads. In the
analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections, the effect of connection flexi-
bility is modeled by attaching rotational springs with stiffness moduli Ka and Kb to
the first and second ends of a member as shown in Fig. 2.
The nonlinear stiffness matrix of member i with semi-rigid restraints at the ends
in global coordinates has the following form:
Fig. 2. Semi-rigid plane frame member.
冤冥
a ⯗
b d ⯗
c1 e1 f1 ⯗
[S] ⫽ % % % % % % % (10)
⫺a ⫺b ⫺c1 ⯗ a
⫺b ⫺d ⫺e1 ⯗ b d
⫺c2 ⫺e2 f2 ⯗ c2 e2 g
in which
EA 12EI
a⫽ × cos2a ⫹ 3 × fx1 × f5 × sin2a (11a)
L L
b⫽ 冉 EA 12EI
L L 冊
⫺ 3 × fx1 × f5 cosasina (11b)
EA 12EI
d⫽ × sin2a ⫹ 3 × fx1 × f5 × cos2a (11c)
L L
6EI
c1 ⫽ ⫺ × fx2 × f2 × sina (11d)
L2
6EI
c2 ⫽ ⫺ × fx3 × f2 × sina (11e)
L2
6EI
e1 ⫽ × fx2 × f2 × cosa (11f)
L2
6EI
e2 ⫽ × fx3 × f2 × cosa (11g)
L2
4EI
f1 ⫽ × fx4 × f3 (11h)
L
2EI
f2 ⫽ × fx5 × f3 (11i)
L
4EI
g⫽ × fx6 × f4 (11j)
L
where E is the modulus of elasticity, A, I, L and α are the area, the moment of
inertia, the length and the direction cosine of the member respectively. The effects
of the flexible connections are included in the stiffness matrix by modifying the
stiffness terms of rigid frame member with fx1 , fx2, fx3 , fx4 , fx5 , and fx6 . These
coefficients are given by Grundy [22] as:
fx1 ⫽ (KaKb ⫹ Ka ⫹ Kb) / KK (12a)
fx2 ⫽ Ka(Kb ⫹ 2) / KK (12b)
fx3 ⫽ Kb(Ka ⫹ 2) / KK (12c)
fx4 ⫽ Ka(Kb ⫹ 3) / KK (12d)
fx5 ⫽ KaKb / KK (12e)
fx6 ⫽ Kb(Ka ⫹ 3) / KK (12f)
KK ⫽ KaKb ⫹ 4(Ka ⫹ Kb) ⫹ 12 (12g)
where Ka and Kb are the stiffness moduli of the flexible connections at the ends of
the member. The effect of axial forces on the deformed shape of the member is
included in the stiffness matrix by using stability functions of f2 , f3 , f4 , and f5.

These functions are derived by Majid [23] and have been used in the optimum design
of unbraced rigid frames by Saka and Kameshki [24]. They have the following forms:
f1 ⫽ bcotb (13a)
f2 ⫽ b2 / (3⫺3f1) (13b)
f3 ⫽ (3f2 ⫹ f1) / 4 (13c)
f ⫽ (3f2⫺f1) / 2 (13d)
f5 ⫽ f1f2 (13e)
where b ⫽ 0.5p√r,r ⫽ Fl / Pcr ⫽ Fll / (p EI) in which Fl is the axial force in the
2 2
member, and Pcr is the Euler critical load for a pin-ended member of the same length
and stiffness of the member.
3.1. Determination of Ka and Kb
The stiffness moduli Ka and Kb of the flexible connections are determined by

considering nonlinear connection behavior. There are several mathematical models
to describe the M- qr relationship obtained by fitting a curve to experimental data,
which are summarized by ref. [8]. Among these the polynomial model proposed by
Frye and Morris is adopted in this study due to its easy implementation. This model
is represented by an odd power polynomial of the form
qr ⫽ c1(KM)1 ⫹ c2(KM)3 ⫹ c3(KM)5 (14)
where K is the standardization constant, which depends upon connection type and
geometry; and c1, c2 and c3 are the curve fitting constants. The values of these con-
stants are given in Table 1 for different types of connections. M is the moment
applied to the connection and θr is the relative rotation of the beam to column. The
rotational stiffness Ka and Kb of the springs at the ends of the member are calculated
as a tangent stiffness using the nonlinear standardized function given in Table 1. This
Table 1
Frye–Morris polynomial constants (see eq. (14))
Connection types Curve fitting constants Standardized constants
c1 c2 c3
End plate without 1.83 × 10⫺3 1.04 × 10⫺4 6.38 × 10⫺6 K ⫽ d⫺2.4
g t⫺0.4
p d⫺1.5
b
column stiffeners
Top and seat angle with 2.23 × 10⫺5 1.85 × 10⫺8 3.19 × 10⫺12 K ⫽ d⫺1.287t⫺1.128t⫺0.415
c la⫺0.694g1.35
double web angle
Top and seat angle 8.46 × 10⫺4 1.01 × 10⫺4 1.24 × 10⫺8 K ⫽ d⫺1.5t⫺0.5l⫺0.7
a d⫺1.5
b
without double web
angle
is simply achieved by first computing the flexibility of the connection as dqr/dM . The
stiffness of the connection is then obtained as a reciprocal of the flexibility calculated
for a certain value of the moment, if the connection is loaded [8]. The stiffness of
the connection is taken as its initial stiffness, if the connection is unloaded as shown
in Fig. 3.
3.2. P–⌬ effect
Semi-rigid connections in steel frames cause increase in lateral displacements.

This in turn makes it necessary to consider the effect of axial forces in the structural
response of the frame. The nonlinear stiffness matrix, which accounts for this effect
with stability functions, is shown in eqs. (10), (11) and (13). The algorithm utilized
to account for P–⌬ effects is given in detail by Majid [23].
During the iterations of the non-linear analysis, the determinant of the overall
stiffness matrix is calculated and loss of stability is checked. If the convergence in
the axial forces is obtained without loss of stability, the joint displacements and
member forces obtained in this nonlinear response are used in the computation of
fitness values for this individual. It should be noted that during the non-linear analysis
the fixed end moments change from one iteration to another due to rotational springs
attached at the end of beams. The modified fixed end moments are calculated by
taking into account the effect of flexible end connection for a frame member, which
Fig. 3. Moment-rotation behavior of semi-rigid connection.

is loaded as described in ref. [4]. In the case where linear modeling is used to rep-
resent the semi-rigid connection, the initial stiffness of the semi-rigid connection is
used throughout the analysis.
4. Optimum design procedure
The optimum design algorithm developed for steel frames with semi-rigid connec-
tions, based on genetic algorithm, consists of the following steps.
1. Initial population is constructed randomly.

2. For each individual decoding is carried out and steel sections adopted for the
design from the standard steel section table are identified.
3. The nonlinear analysis of the frame is carried out under the applied loads for
these sections by accounting for nonlinear behavior of the semi-rigid connections
and P–⌬ effect.
4. The joint displacements and member forces obtained from the nonlinear analysis
are used to calculate the values of normalized constraints and unconstrained func-
tion Z from eqs. (6) and (7) for each individual.
5. Fitness values and fitness factors are computed for each individual and depending
on their fitness factor individuals are copied into the mating pool.
6. Individuals are coupled randomly and a reproduction operator is applied using
two point cross sites and a value of 0.8 for probability of crossover. Two off-
springs are generated from each couple and a new population is obtained.
7. Mutation is applied to the new population with a probability value of 0.001.
8. The initial population is replaced with the new population and steps 1 to 7 are
repeated until the same individual dominates 80% of the new population or a pre-
selected number of generations is reached. The fittest individual of all the gener-
ations represents the best solution.
In order to ensure that the best individual of each generation is not destroyed from
one generation to another, elitist strategy is followed in the design algorithm. In each
generation, among the individuals which satisfy all the design constraints, the one
with minimum weight is stored and compared with the similar individual of the next
generation. If the new one is heavier than the old one, there is then a loss of good
genetic material. This situation is rectified by replacing the individual having the
lowest fitness of the current generation with the previous individual. In this way the
loss of good individuals during the generations is prevented.
5. Design examples
The design algorithm presented is used to design three unbraced steel frames with
rigid and semi-rigid semi-rigid connections considering the linear and nonlinear (P–
⌬) effect. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 210 kN/mm2 . The constant C in eq.
(7) is taken equal to 10 in all examples. Three different types of semi rigid connec-
tions are considered in the examples which are extended end plated with no column
stiffeners, and top and seat angle with and without double web angle as shown in
Fig. 4. The curve fitting and standardization constants of M– qr polynomial relation-
Fig. 4. Connection types.

ships for these connections are given in Table 1. The size parameters in the equations
for standardization constants of Table 1 are shown in Fig. 4.
In the extended end plate connection, the thickness of the end plate is selected as
12 mm. The value of dg is calculated depending upon the standard steel section
adopted for the beam. During the design process, the bolt diameters to be used in
these different connections are computed from the design of the connection according
to clause 6.3 of BS5950 for bending moment and shear considering grade 8.8 of
ordinary bolts.
In the design examples considered, first, British Standard sections given in “Steel-
work design guide to BS 5950” published by the Steel Construction Institute, UK
are used [25]. It is noticed that these sets of sections were able to provide an optimum
solution for small size steel frames, but were unable to provide any solution for
moderate or large size frames with semi-rigid connections. This difficulty is over-
come by placing British sections with wide flange sections. This has increased the
total number of available sections from 96 to 512 providing much greater flexibility
for the algorithm to reach even a lighter frame than would be obtained by using
British sections. The steel grade of A36 is considered for wide flange sections.
The experience obtained during the optimum design of the number of steel frames
has shown that after 400 generations no further improvement was possible in the
design. Hence, the maximum number of generations in the examples presented is
taken as 400. The optimum frames reported in the examples considered are obtained
after designing the frame ten times each time using a different seed value. The opti-
mum frame is the one which is the lightest among these ten designs.
5.1. Three-storey, two-bay frame
The three-storey, two-bay frame analyzed by Barakat and Chen [26] is considered
to demonstrate the effect of various semi-rigid connections in the optimum design.
Fig. 5 shows the frame configuration, dimensions, loading, and numbering of joints
and grouping of members. The allowable inter-storey drift and the sway of the top
storey were 12.19 and 36.5 mm respectively as specified by the code.
The optimum results obtained for designs with rigid and semi-rigid connections
considering linear and nonlinear (P–⌬) effect behavior of the frame are presented
in Table 2. The comparison of the minimum weight of frames for each case is shown
in Fig. 6. It is apparent from Table 2 that the design problem was governed by the
strength interaction ratio. In the optimum frames, this ratio is close to one while
lateral drift values are much smaller then their allowable values.
Fig. 6 shows that frames with semi-rigid connections are heavier than ones with
rigid connections in the case of linear frame behavior. When the design is based on
linear frame behavior, the frames with end plate connections, top and seat angle with
and without double web angles are 9.3, 3.9 and 3.9% heavier than the frame with
rigid connections. However, the comparison among the semi-rigid connections
reveals the fact that when a connection becomes more flexible, the frame becomes
lighter. The frame with top and seat angle without web cleat is 5% lighter than the
frame with end plate connection. Consideration of nonlinear frame behavior results
Fig. 5. Three-storey, two-bay steel frame.
in lighter designs compared to linear frames in both semi-rigid connections of

extended end plate and top and seat angle without web cleat. However, in the semi-
rigid frame with top and seat angle with double web cleat, consideration of nonlinear
behaviour yields heavier frame. This reduction is 13% in the rigid frame and
increases to 23% in the case of an extended end plate without column stiffeners. A
comparison of minimum weights of nonlinear frames, with semi-rigid and the rigid
connections, shows that end plate connection produces a 4.5% lighter frame, while
top and seat angle with and without double web cleat connections results in 27 and
18% heavier frames respectively.
In some designs, neither the strength nor the drift limitations are dominant. Instead,
the lower and upper storey column size constraints govern the design. This is appar-
ent from the result of the optimum nonlinear frame where the top and seat angle
with double web angles is used as the connection type. It is also noticed that the
number of linear analyses required to obtain the nonlinear response of the frame in
every optimum design cycle differs from one type of connection to the other. The
number of linear analysis required in frames with rigid connections was three, with
the end plate connection was six, with top and seat angle with web cleat was 15
and with top and seat angle without web cleat was eight.
5.2. Ten-storey, one-bay frame
The ten-storey, one-bay frame of Fig. 7 is also designed using the algorithm
presented herein. The frame configuration dimensions, loading, joint numbering and
member grouping is shown in the figure. This frame is designed with and without
Table 2
Optimum designs for a three-storey, two-bay steel frame
Group Member Linear frame analysis Non-linear frame analysis

type
Rigid Extended end Top and seat Top and seat Rigid Extended end Top and seat Top and seat
plate without angle with angle plate without angle with angle without
column double web without web column double web web cleat
stiffener cleat cleat stiffener cleat
1 Column W24×55 W21×50 W21×50 W21×73 W24×55 W18×36 W21×50 W21×111

2 Column W21×44 W18×35 W18×35 W21×50 W16×31 W14×26 W16×40 W21×50
3 Column W12×26 W18×35 W12×35 W16×26 W12×40 W8×18 W8×31 W6×15
4 Column W30×108 W27×84 W21×62 W21×44 W18×35 W24×68 W36×135 W18×35
5 Column W24×55 W24×55 W21×44 W18×40 W18×35 W24×68 W18×55 W16×36
6 Column W18×35 W18×46 W18×40 W12×45 W12×35 W18×35 W16×40 W12×45
7 Beam W14×26 W18×35 W18×35 W16×31 W16×26 W15×26 W16×31 W16×26
Total weight (kg) 3872 4230 4019 4023 3374 3225 4268 3979
Maximum strength interaction ratio 0.96 1 1 0.86 1 0.93 0.66 1
Top storey sway (mm) 12.2 3.7 5.9 7.3 16.2 15.6 16.4 21
(allowable=36.6)
E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 109–134
125
Fig. 6. Comparison of optimum designs for three-storey two-bay frame.
considering P–⌬ effect together with rigid and semi-rigid connection modeling. The
allowable inter-storey drift was 12.2 mm while the top storey sway was limited to
125 mm.
The optimum frames obtained from the design of rigid and semi-rigid connections
considering linear and nonlinear frame behaviors are presented in Table 3. The mini-
mum weight of the frames for each case is compared in Fig. 8. It is noticed from
this figure that optimum frames with semi-rigid connections, such as top and seat
angle with and without double web cleat, are lighter than the ones with rigid connec-
tions when linear frame behavior is considered in the design. The frame with an
extended end plate has almost the same weight as the rigid frame, the frames with
top and seat angle with and without double web angle connections are 5.1 and 6.8%
lighter. This is contrary to the results obtained in the previous example. The reason
for this is that in spite of the tall and slender appearance of the frame; it is subjected
to a heavy gravity load, which actually governs the design.
Consideration of nonlinear frame behavior results in a lighter design in the case
of rigid frames. However, in all other type of connections it yields heavier frames.
The number of iterations required to obtain the nonlinear response of the rigid frame
in each optimum design cycle was two. In the end plate connection three, and in
the top and seat angle with web cleat 18 and without web cleat 11 linear analyses
were required. The increase in the optimum weight is 13.5% in the frame with an
extended end plate connection and 14.6% in the frame having top and seat without
double web angle connection. A comparison of the weights of nonlinear frames
indicates that all the frames with semi-rigid connections are heavier than the rigid
frames.
Fig. 7. Ten-storey, one-bay steel frame.

128
Table 3
Optimum designs for a ten-storey, one-bay steel frame

type
1 Column W36×135 W36×160 W36×135 W40×192 W36×182 W36×182 W36×232 W36×150

2 Column W33×141 W36×135 W30×108 W36×135 W36×135 W36×135 W36×210 W36×135
3 Column W30×108 W36×135 W30×108 W33×118 W30×108 W33×118 W33×221 W30×108
4 Column W27×102 W33×118 W30×108 W21×73 W24×68 W27×102 W24×117 W30×108
5 Column W14×90 W30×108 W21×73 W16×67 W21×111 W14×99 W24×104 W27×84
6 Beam W24×68 W24×68 W24×76 W21×73 W24×68 W33×118 W30×116 W30×90
7 Beam W24×68 W24×68 W27×102 W24×68 W24×68 W24×76 W27×102 W30×90
8 Beam W27×84 W24×68 W24×55 W24×55 W24×68 W21×93 W36×135 W21×93
9 Beam W30×108 W18×35 W24×55 W21×44 W21×44 W18×50 W21×83 W18×55
Total weight (kg) 23453 23603 22255 21933 22677 26797 35490 25069
Maximum strength interaction ratio 1 0.97 0.97 1 0.96 1 0.65 0.94
Top storey sway (mm) 9.8 4 4 4.4 10 7.8 7.8 9.5
(allowable=125)
Fig. 8. Comparison of optimum designs for ten-storey, one-bay frame.
5.3. Ten-storey, three-bay frame
The ten-storey, three bay frame of Fig. 9 was designed by Xu and Grierson [9]
where the rotational stiffness of the semi-rigid connections at each floor level were
treated as design variables in addition to member sizes. The configuration, dimen-
sions and loading, numbering of joints and grouping of members are shown in the
figure. The allowable inter-storey drift was 12.2 mm while the top storey sway was
limited to 91.44 mm.
The optimum designs obtained for frames with rigid and semi-rigid connections
considering linear and nonlinear behavior are presented in Table 4. The comparison
of the minimum weights of frames is shown in Fig. 10. Similarly to the first example,
when the design was based on linear frame behavior, the frames with end plate
connections, and top and seat angle with and without double web angle are 4.5, 3.4
and 2.4% heavier than the frame with rigid connections. However, a comparison of
frames with semi-rigid connections indicates that the frame with top and seat angle
without double web angle is 2% lighter than the frame with an end plate connection.
Consideration of nonlinear frame behavior results in 2.2, 9 and 3% lighter frames
in the case of rigid, end plate and top and seat angle without double web angle
connections, respectively. Comparison of the minimum weight of a nonlinear rigid
frame with various semi-rigid connections shows that end plate connection produces
a 1.9% lighter frame while top and seat angle with and without double angle connec-
tions results in 6.3 and 1.5% heavier frames, respectively. It is also noticed that in
these designs the nonlinear response of the rigid frame is obtained after two linear
analyses; while in the case of semi-rigid frames, this was five in the end plate connec-
tion type, ten in top and seat angle with double web cleat and five without web cleat.
Fig. 9. Ten-storey, three-bay steel frame.

Table 4
Optimum designs for a ten-storey, three-bay steel frame

type
1 Column W33×424 W27×494 W24×103 W30×148 W33×424 W27×368 W24×842 W33×387

2 Column W24×76 W24×76 W24×76 W21×248 W33×468 W24×76 W21×248 W21×201
3 Column W33×387 W27×368 W33×387 W27×235 W18×311 W21×93 W30×173 W33×387
4 Column W33×387 W24×76 W33×387 W33×130 W33×387 W27×178 W27×407 W27×178
5 Column W33×141 W33×141 W21×248 W21×111 W18×311 W18×65 W33×141 W33×141
6 Column W33×141 W33×141 W33×141 W30×357 W33×130 W18×311 W27×368 W18×311
7 Column W24×492 W24×492 W27×368 W18×143 W18×76 W18×35 W27×407 W24×492
8 Column W21×201 W30×326 W24×492 W24×492 W27×194 W18×35 W24×492 W24×492
9 Column W18×65 W18×35 W24×492 W18×40 W18×65 W18×35 W18×65 W18×65
10 Column W18×65 W24×492 W18×40 W18×35 W18×35 W18×35 W24×492 W18×65
11 Beam W24×76 W30×90 W18×40 W18×35 W21×57 W24×68 W24×62 W40×149
12 Beam W21×50 W21×44 W21×50 W18×40 W21×68 W36×150 W21×50 W18×55
13 Beam W21×57 W24×55 W18×35 W24×68 W18×35 W24×55 W21×44 W24×68
14 Beam W30×90 W24×84 W18×40 W18×35 W18×35 W33×152 W18×35 W24×55
15 Beam W18×35 W18×40 W24×55 W24×55 W24×55 W18×46 W24×68 W18×35
16 Beam W18×35 W18×55 W24×55 W21×83 W24×60 W18×46 W24×84 W24×68
17 Beam W18×46 W33×118 W18×46 W27×102 W21×50 W24×68 W24×76 W18×35
18 Beam W18×50 W18×50 W21×44 W18×55 W18×46 W18×46 W21×44 W18×40
19 Beam W18×35 W21×50 W24×68 W18×55 W18×35 W18×76 W21×50 W21×111
20 Beam W18×35 W18×35 W18×35 W18×35 W18×35 W18×35 W18×35 W18×35
Total weight (kg) 86002 89900 88938 88081 84083 82500 89388 85361
Maximum strength interaction ratio 0.87 0.79 0.84 0.97 0.82 1 0.9 1
Top storey sway (mm) 7.2 4.7 4.7 5.7 7.6 6.9 3.5 4.4
(allowable=91.4)
131
Fig. 10. Comparison of optimum designs for ten-storey, three-bay frame.
6. Summary and conclusions
A genetic algorithm based optimum design method is presented for nonlinear steel
frames with semi-rigid connections. Design examples are included to demonstrate
the effect of connection flexibility and geometric nonlinearity in the design of
steel frames.
It is noticed from the design examples that when the overall gravity loading is
much larger compared to lateral loading and is dominant in the design of the frame,
linear semi-rigid frames are lighter than linear rigid frames. Furthermore, a compari-
son of optimum linear frames with various types of semi-rigid connections shows
that when the connection becomes more flexible, the frame becomes lighter. It is
also noticed that the frame with top and seat angle without web cleat is 7.8% lighter
than the frame with rigid connections. On the other hand, if the overall gravity
loading is not that large compared to lateral loading, i.e. both loadings are active in
the linear frame design, semi-rigid connections produce heavier frames. The increase
in the weight of the linear frame with an end plate connection was 9.3% compared
to the rigid frame in three-storey, two-bay frames.
Consideration of geometric nonlinearity in the frame design yields lighter frames
compared to linear frames in the case of rigid connections. However, this is not the
case in the semi-rigid connections. It is observed that nonlinear semi-rigid frames
are lighter in some cases and heavier in some others, compared to linear semi-rigid
frames, depending on the magnitude of loading and frame configuration. This result
indicates the importance of realistic connection modeling in the optimum design of
steel frames. Failure of accurate modeling of connections may yield unsafe designs.
References
[1] Gerstle KH. Effects of connections on frames. In: Chen WF, editor. Steel beam-to-column building
connections. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd; 1988. p. 241–67.
[2] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specifications for structural steel buildings, American
Chicago, IL: Institute of Steel Construction, 1994.
[3] BS5950, British standards, (1990). Structural use of steelworks in building. Part1. Code of practice
for design in simple and continuous construction, hot rolled sections. British Standard Institution,
London, U.K.
[4] Monforton GR, Wu TS. Matrix analysis of semi-rigidly connected steel frames. J. Struc. Div., ASCE
1963;90(6):13–42.
[5] Frye MJ, Morris GA. Analysis of flexible connected steel frames. Can. J. Civil Engrg
1975;2(3):280–91.
[6] Lui EM, Chen WF. Analysis and behavior of flexibly-jointed frames. Engrg. Struct. 1986;8:107–18.
[7] Cunningham R. Some aspects of semi-rigid connections in structural steel work. Struct. Engrg
1990;68(5):88–92.
[8] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability design of steel frames. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1991.
[9] Xu L, Grierson DE. Computer automated design of semi-rigid steel frameworks. J. of Struc. Engin-
eering, ASCE 1993;119(6):1740–60.
[10] lmusallam TH. Effect of connection flexibility on the optimum design of steel frames. In: Topping
BHV, editor. Developments in computational techniques for civil engineering. Edinburgh, UK: Civil-
Comp Press; 1995. p. 129–35.
[11] Simoes LMC. Optimization of frames with semi-rigid connections. J. of Computers & Structures
1996;60(4):531–9.
[12] Dhillon BS, O’Malley JW. Interactive design of semi-rigid steel frames. J. of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 1999;125(5):556–64.
[13] Kishi N, Chen WF, Goto Y. Effective length factor of columns in semi-rigid and unbraced frames.
J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(3):313–20.
[14] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithm in search optimization and machine learning. Reading, MA, USA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc, 1998.
[15] Leite JPB, Topping BHV. Improved genetic operators for structural engineering optimization. In:
Topping BHV, editor. Development in neural networks and evolutionary computing for civil and
structural engineering. UK: CIVIL-COMP Press; 1995. p. 143–69.
[16] Camp C, Pezeshk S, Cao G. Design of framed structures using a genetic algorithm. Advances in
Structural Optimization. In: Frangopol DM, Cheng FY, editors. ASCE. 1996. p. 19–30.
[17] Chen T-Y, Chen C-J. Improvement of simple genetic algorithm in structural design. Int. Journal for
Num. Methods in Engineering 1997;40:1323–34.
[18] Saka MP, Kameshki ES. Optimum design of unbraced rigid frames. J. of Computers and Structures
1998;69:433–42.
[19] Hasancebi O, Erbatur F. Evaluation of crossover techniques in genetic algorithm based optimum
structural design. In: Topping BHV, editor. Advances in Engineering Computational Technology.
Edinburgh, UK: CIVIL-COMP Press; 1998. p. 111–23.
[20] Camp C, Pezeshk S, Cao G. Optimized design of two-dimensional structures using a genetic algor-
ithm. J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1996;124(5):19–30.
[21] Rajeev S, Krishnamoorthy CS. Discrete optimization of structures using genetic algorithms. J. of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(5):1233–50.
[22] Grundy P. Stability and design of frames with flexible connections. Civil Engineering Trans., Instn.
Engr., Austr 1986;28(2):190–4.
[23] Majid KI. Nonlinear structures. London: Butterworth, 1972.
[24] Saka MP, Kameshki ES. Optimum design of multi-storey sway steel frames to BS5950 using a
genetic algorithm. In: Topping BHV, editor. Advances in engineering computational technology.
UK: CIVIL-COMP Press; 1998. p. 135–41.
[25] Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950. Part I, Section properties, Member Capacities, Vol. 1, 4th
edition. UK: The Steel Construction Institute, 1990.
[26] Barakat M, Chen W-F. Practical analysis of semi-rigid frames. Engineering Journal, AISC
1990;Second Quarter(27):54–68.

Genetic Algorithm Based Optimum Design of Nonlinear Planar Steel Frames With Various Semirigid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genetic Algorithm Based Optimum Design of Nonlinear Planar Steel Frames With Various Semirigid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 109–134

Genetic algorithm based optimum design of

Fig. 1. Connection moment-rotation curve.

2. Discrete optimum design of unbraced steel frames with semi-rigid

2.1. Design problem

Minimize W ⫽ mr ls. (1a)

diⱕdiu i ⫽ 1,2,%rd (1c)

2.2. Section classification

It is worth mentioning that BS5950 necessitates the determination of the classi-

2.3. Effective column-length factor

in which KA and KB are the rotational stiffnesses of the semi-rigid connections at

2.4. Solution by genetic algorithm

gl ⫽ Mxl / Mcxl⫺1ⱕ0 l ⫽ 1,2,%,nb (6e)

gr ⫽ Bbfr / Bcfr⫺1ⱕ0 r ⫽ 1,%,nj (6f)

gt ⫽ Dut / Dlt⫺1ⱕ0 t ⫽ nby ⫹ 2,%,nj (6g)

Z ⫽ W(1 ⫹ C nt) (7)

where W is the objective function given in eq. (1a), C is a constant to be selected

if gtⱕ0 then vt ⫽ 0 (8b)

3. Analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections

Fig. 2. Semi-rigid plane frame member.

included in the stiffness matrix by using stability functions of f2 , f3 , f4 , and f5.

3.1. Determination of Ka and Kb

The stiffness moduli Ka and Kb of the flexible connections are determined by

Connection types Curve fitting constants Standardized constants

3.2. P–⌬ effect

Semi-rigid connections in steel frames cause increase in lateral displacements.

Fig. 3. Moment-rotation behavior of semi-rigid connection.

4. Optimum design procedure

1. Initial population is constructed randomly.

Fig. 4. Connection types.

5.1. Three-storey, two-bay frame

Fig. 5. Three-storey, two-bay steel frame.

in lighter designs compared to linear frames in both semi-rigid connections of

5.2. Ten-storey, one-bay frame

Group Member Linear frame analysis Non-linear frame analysis

1 Column W24×55 W21×50 W21×50 W21×73 W24×55 W18×36 W21×50 W21×111

Fig. 6. Comparison of optimum designs for three-storey two-bay frame.

Fig. 7. Ten-storey, one-bay steel frame.

Group Member Linear frame analysis Non-linear frame analysis

1 Column W36×135 W36×160 W36×135 W40×192 W36×182 W36×182 W36×232 W36×150

Fig. 8. Comparison of optimum designs for ten-storey, one-bay frame.

5.3. Ten-storey, three-bay frame

Fig. 9. Ten-storey, three-bay steel frame.

Group Member Linear frame analysis Non-linear frame analysis

1 Column W33×424 W27×494 W24×103 W30×148 W33×424 W27×368 W24×842 W33×387

Fig. 10. Comparison of optimum designs for ten-storey, three-bay frame.

6. Summary and conclusions

You might also like